On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 00:10 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2010-11-04 22:51, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>
> >> Yeah, it is annoying for sure. The problem is that this particular object
> >> is widely used and has been distributed and used like this since 2003ish.
> >
> > Can't it be distributed within puredata itself?
>
> hmm, i'd rather have the "puredata" package follow the upstream package
> "pd" as closely as possible, without adding objects.
> so people using "pd-vanilla" (that is: upstream pd without any
> additional libraries), are 100% compatible with people using only
> debian's "puredata" package.
>
> i'd probably go for a "pd-plugins-misc" (name to be discussed) package
> that distributes a number of _trivial_ 3rd party objects ("trivial"
> meaning, that they don't justify separate packaging)
We are really talking about libraries, plugins is not an appropriate
word. Are python objects "plugins"? How about perl modules? Same idea
here.
As for packaging pd-arraysize together with other things, as far as I
know, it is not Debian practice to lump together different upstream
projects into a single package, I don't think its a good idea here
either.
.hc
>
> >
> > Usage in a helpfile does not really warrant a Depends relation.
> > Recommends or Suggests are better.
>
> i couldn't have said this better.
>
> (esp. in this very case, where the help-patch is fully functional even
> without pd-pddp installed; having pd-pddp only allows to have a
> clickable link in the help-patch for more information, instead of a
> (harmless) error on the pd-console)
If by "fully" you mean except the part of the help patch that needs
'pddp'. ;-P The help patch uses an object in pd-pddp. That part of the
help patch won't work without it.
.hc
_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
